In Ferguson, Missouri, Police Officer Darren Wilson shot an 18 year old Michael Brown and it is really not clear why! Police Chief Jackson immediately tried to disparage Brown's reputation by releasing video showing an individual that Jackson alleged might be Brown shoplifting a package of cigars, but then Jackson said that the incident had nothing to do with the shooting.
Another question remains, when may an officer shoot a suspect? Is it a constitutional use of force to shoot a suspect? Was Michael Brown even a suspect subject to an arrest in Ferguson, Missouri on the night that Darren Wilson shot him? Does the misdemeanor arrest rule apply in Missouri?
What does the Law say about when an Officer shoots a suspect? Was Michael Brown a suspect on the night that Darrel Wilson shot Michael Brown? It is axiomatic that the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from deprivation by the state of life without due process.
Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284, 100 S.Ct. 553, 558, 62 L.Ed.2d 481.
There is no easy-to-apply legal test for whether an officer's use of deadly force is excessive; instead, we must "slosh our way through the fact-bound morass of `reasonableness.'" Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 383, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). This sloshing requires us to weigh "the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion." Id. Some of the factors that we have found useful when conducting this balancing act include "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Weigel v. Broad, 544 F.3d 1143, 1151-52 (10th Cir.2008) (citation omitted). Additionally, we have considered "whether the officers' own reckless or deliberate conduct during the seizure unreasonably created the need to use such force." Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124, 1132 (10th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). Once the relevant facts are determined with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party at the summary judgment stage, "whether [the suspect's] actions have risen to a level warranting deadly force ... is a pure question of law." Scott, 550 U.S. at 381 n. 8, 127 S.Ct. 1769.
Cordova v. Aragon, 569 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir., 2009)
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Tennessee v. Garner Memphis Police Department v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead....
... Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.
Haugen v. Brosseau, 351 F.3d 372 (9th Cir., 2003)
On the other hand, the mere fact that a suspect possesses a weapon does not justify deadly force
Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1202 (9th Cir.1997)
in the Ruby Ridge civil case, the FBI's directive to kill any armed adult male was constitutionally unreasonable even though a United States Marshal had already been shot and killed by one of the males;
Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police, 952 F.2d 321, 324-25 (9th Cir.1991)
Just from a cursory glance at the case law, it appears that Darrel Wilson faces a lot of hurdles in creating a defense for shooting an unarmed teenager, who he may have been questioning about jaywalking. Michael Brown did not appear to present an imminent risk to anybody, he was not a suspect in any violent crime. At the time that he was shot by Officer Wilson, it appears from eyewitness accounts that he was surrendering, had raised his arms, and may have even gone to his knees. From the autopsy photos, it even appears that after he was shot, Officer Wilson was shot in the top of the head, with the bullet going on a downward path, exiting the jaw.
Why is Darren Wilson not in custody and why have there not been any charges filed?